Slower courts at USO

In recent years the USO has undoubtedly been the fastest of the slam surfaces.

However it appears as if they have further reduced the speed of the courts this year. With a lot of rain in the air this year (Irene) the balls will also be heavier and slower.

Who will this favour? I suspect Nadal and Djokovic.

I think this further homogenisation of the surfaces is unhealthy as it promotes only one kind of tennis - basically the baseline attrition. Faster courts at flushing meadows would have permitted players with greater net skills to exploit those talents (ala Fish, Federer, Llodra etc). Read the article below.


http://www.thesportreview.com/tsr/20...g-of-flushing/

US Open 2011: Federer & Fish on the slowing of Flushing

Roger Federer and Mardy Fish on the playing conditions and courts at this year's tournament

By Marianne Bevis in New York
10:53pm UK, Saturday 27 August, 2011

With some players, the pre-tournament news conference—the soft-edged gatherings that come before the post-match analyses of serious competition—feel more like conversations than interviews.
That two of the five players to take on Hurricane Irene and venture to Flushing Meadows were in that mould produced some interesting pre-tournament discussion on the playing conditions and courts at this year’s US Open.

First up was Roger Federer, seemingly laid-back almost to horizontal and expansive, as ever, on everything from memories of 9/11—he was at the National Tennis Centre in Biel, Switzerland working out in the gym, since you ask—to his outlook now that he’s 30—“It’s just a number”—to the chances of Andy Murray, Juan Martin Del Potro and Novak Djokovic.

One of the more intriguing comments came unsolicited via the circuitous route of his form ahead of the tournament.

The near-standard response—feeling good, no niggling injuries, everything under control—segued seamlessly into the courts at Flushing this year.

“Conditions have been somewhat OK here in New York. [The surface] seems a bit slower actually. But I don’t want to say it’s a slight adjustment, because it’s not a crazy difference to previous years, but it is slower.

“That’s my opinion. That has maybe an impact [on your expectations] rather than who you play and how you play them.”

A diversionary tactic? Perhaps, but the next man up was rather firmer in expressing a similar opinion, a man’s whose game may be even more affected by the pace of the courts than Federer’s.

The relaxed and voluble Mardy Fish is carrying a little more bulk, he claims, than when he reached the fourth round at last year’s Open. This time, he feels fitter, has more stamina and is eager to get going.

The pleasure he is taking in his success is almost tangible. It’s as though he can barely believe his own good fortune to be No8 in the world, to be getting byes in the first round of Masters, to be riding his personal wave for a second successive year: “I pretty candidly can say I didn’t think I was going to be in this position right now.”

He’s also eager to talk, unprompted, of his respect for how Andy Roddick carried the pressure of American expectation for so long and his own willingness to turn to both Roddick and James Blake for support.

He neatly turned a question about the success of his serve-and-volley game on the summer’s hard courts to the issue of the playing conditions not just in New York but throughout the Slam calendar.

“I don’t think [serve and volley] is coming back in. They’ve even slowed down this surface, which is frustrating, because this was definitely the fastest Slam surface-wise that we’ve had.

“Cincinnati and Montreal were extremely fast: I would prefer to play on that surface every single tournament, but it’s not how it works. I will certainly come to the net here—I have to—but maybe a little bit less than there.”

Many have talked of an ongoing trend towards slower courts and Fish clearly agrees: “There are a lot of really slow Grand Slams now, surface-wise. Now with it being much slower out here this year, it sort of fits right in with Australia.”

And that, he believes, should make Djokovic an even hotter favourite than he already is.

Of course, the playing conditions—as anyone fighting their way through the blanket-heavy humidity of the last few days will testify—are surely being affected by the weather.

Fish agreed: “It’s almost like it’s just raining out of the sky with no rain. It’s just so humid. The balls just get extremely big.”

He must hope that—once Irene has blown herself out—a more traditional dry heat will speed up both the courts and the balls just a little. But both he and Federer are scheduled to play on Monday, a mere 24 hours after the threatened downpours across New York.

Judging from the rain that has only just begun to drench the streets of Manhatten, the USTA faces a race against the clock to get that snap, crackle and pop back into Arthur Ashe’s field of dreams.

Until then, the jury is out on just how much slower Flushing’s courts will be for 2011’s concluding Slam.

Watching Cilic-Harrison.

The courts do look really slow. Cilic is struggling to hit winners with his big FH.

I hate it! I am going to give up on tennis and watch curling instead...That's faster nowadays than tennis and a surface they can't quite slow down!

Have to agree, this slowing down isnt good for the future of the sport...

The court that Cilic-Harrison played on looked really small for a slam, wonder what tennis balls they are using? This could be a blessing for Nadal

I think the persistent slowing down of the courts and the continued homogenisation of conditions will produce players who all play a similar type of game. The variety will be lost. The ATP already seems to have moved in the direction of the wta with predominantly baseline ball bashing players.

Net skills are becoming rarer. Chip and charge is hardly ever seen. Even well played slice shots are becoming a rarity. It's all power based with huge emphasis on fitness and endurance.

Fed seems really peed off about it in his first match interview....and rightly so.

It's a joke; one of the great aspects of the game in the past was the hugely different challenges of the different surfaces. I loved it that my fast court favourites would go to clay and get mashed up by some South American kid who could slug it out for 5 hours.

Now I wonder really what the point of them being on different surfaces is; why not just put a slow hardcourt down everywhere and be done with it. I didn't agree with RG being speeded up, so it's not just that the slowing down of Wimbledon hacks me off.

Sharapova/Watson was a case in point; no fan of Shreikapova am I, but there was a match where one player tried to win points and the other was only interested in hacking back, and on this court she was able to make enough back to wait for the errors. We nearly had a player win a long 3 setter with 9 winners.

Makes me wonder if Nadal's Nike contract allows him to choose the surface, tennis balls, humidity and schedule etc. I remember correctly Nadal and Spains DC team complained about an "illegal" HC surface that they played on vs US, they sure don't wanna mess with the RG goat!

I always considered the USO a slam where they wanna be different to the rest, but no they are doing their best to accomodate Spanish/South American players. I guess one other reason they have made it so slow is to do with how weak the Americans have been on clay, so getting them used to slow conditions should in theory help them improve for the clay season..

Got to say I am mightly peed off with the slowing down of the courts. RG seems to have played the fastest out of all the Slams this year. The fact Sharapova could rally from the back of the court against Watson showed how poor the courts are. Against Li Na at the FO she could barely get into rallies and now she can rally from the baseline.

Tenez wrote:I hate it! I am going to give up on tennis and watch curling instead...That's faster nowadays than tennis and a surface they can't quite slow down!

I reckon despite the slowing-down of courts (and I'll judge when I actually see some matches first), Novak Federer matches will never be slow.

I dread to contemplate another Verdasco Nadal 5 set slugfest, though.

Homogenizing the courts will reduce the range of tennis skills on display and ultimately reduce public interest in the sport - where's the benefit in that?

noleisthebest wrote:I reckon despite the slowing-down of courts (and I'll judge when I actually see some matches first), Novak Federer matches will never be slow.

I dread to contemplate another Verdasco Nadal 5 set slugfest, though.

Certainly but it certainly gives Djoko a real edge as he is typically defending more than Federer on average.

The 5 hour Verdasco/Nadal slugfest was on a fast court, wasn't it?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Homogenizing the courts will reduce the range of tennis skills on display and ultimately reduce public interest in the sport - where's the benefit in that?

I'll believe USO has slowed the surface when I see it. Federer's just moaning for the moaning's sake.
Tennis has never been better.
I don't like baseline slugging either, but spare me the wham-bam 3 stroke S&V rallies, please...

The game looks after itself naturally and styles of play come and go.

The real problem is that tennis does not attract talent any more, so you get all these Bolittieri schooled bashing types going into tennis as a steady buck earning jobs....

Still, every generation has come up with a prodigy or two, this particular one has a brilliant top 10 group with the scintillating trio at the top.

noleisthebest wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Homogenizing the courts will reduce the range of tennis skills on display and ultimately reduce public interest in the sport - where's the benefit in that?

I'll believe USO has slowed the surface when I see it. Federer's just moaning for the moaning's sake.
Tennis has never been better.
I don't like baseline slugging either, but spare me the wham-bam 3 stroke S&V rallies, please...

The game looks after itself naturally and styles of play come and go.

The real problem is that tennis does not attract talent any more, so you get all these Bolittieri schooled bashing types going into tennis as a steady buck earning jobs....

Still, every generation has come up with a prodigy or two, this particular one has a brilliant top 10 group with the scintillating trio at the top.

I can say having watched the first round of matches NITB the courts are playing slowler.

However, Like you I don't want to see 2-3 shot SV all the time, but then I don't want to see 30+ rallies each time as this style of tennis is too demanding of tennis professionals.

It needs the right balance. Speed up the Wimbledon courts tohow they were as the Grass season is so short. Speed up the Hardcourts a tad to get the benefit of rallying and SV.

The real problem is that tennis does not attract talent any more, so you get all these Bolittieri schooled bashing types going into tennis as a steady buck earning jobs....

Yep look on the men's side, none of the best players got training in Flroida, clearly if you wanna become a skilled professional you go to Europe. Clearly people who got training over in US mainly went there for the party lifestyle than actual sporting ambitions. Just imagine if Fed and Novak got training in US instead... tennis would be cremated!

Honestly I didn't see Wimbledon play as slow as some of you say it did, just look at Kubot-Lopez, look at the lack of service breaks in middle round matches, Tsonga didn't give Fed a breakpoint in their Quarters match!

Still i'm happy tennis isn't played the way Sampras/Becker would've played it..

The courts still look pretty quick to me but the balls look dead and heavy. Nearly everyone I saw yesterday looked like they were really having to really wallop the ball to get any sort of action on it.

The other culprit is the strings. The polyester strings are all designed to allow the player to generate more topspin and therefore more control with less effort. More topspin = a slower LOOKING game on TV.

Nevertheless, it has been a pretty entertaining start to the US Open so not a lot of tampering with the game, if any, is required.

noleisthebest wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Homogenizing the courts will reduce the range of tennis skills on display and ultimately reduce public interest in the sport - where's the benefit in that?

I'll believe USO has slowed the surface when I see it. Federer's just moaning for the moaning's sake.
Tennis has never been better.
I don't like baseline slugging either, but spare me the wham-bam 3 stroke S&V rallies, please...

The game looks after itself naturally and styles of play come and go.

The real problem is that tennis does not attract talent any more, so you get all these Bolittieri schooled bashing types going into tennis as a steady buck earning jobs....

Still, every generation has come up with a prodigy or two, this particular one has a brilliant top 10 group with the scintillating trio at the top.

Actually it's Fish who has been the most vocal. Fed was diplomatic, Fish right out called it and said it was a pity.

It'll kill the game. Not dead, it'll carry on, but future viewers will be denied a variety that some of us relished. And of course it continues to mislead current/new viewers into not realising that what Bjorn Borg did in multiple FO/W doubles was the greatest particular achievement in tennis history. Bigger than career slams imo, possibly even bigger than 16 Slams.

bogbrush wrote:...what Bjorn Borg did in multiple FO/W doubles was the greatest particular achievement in tennis history.

Not sure I'd go quite that far, but it's a shame that today's players won't even get a chance to match it.
It's easy to forget just how different watching the FO and then Wimbledon was in those days.

The biggest problem I have with slower courts, and therefore making the game more physical, is that it favors the use of PEDs. All physical sports are plagued with doping (more than 10% of athletes according to WADA's CEO) and allowing the physical side to win over the talent side is what really kills the game for me.

Tenez wrote:The biggest problem I have with slower courts, and therefore making the game more physical, is that it favors the use of PEDs. All physical sports are plagued with doping (more than 10% of athletes according to WADA's CEO) and allowing the physical side to win over the talent side is what really kills the game for me.

Now there's something new from Tenez

JuliusHMarx wrote:

bogbrush wrote:...what Bjorn Borg did in multiple FO/W doubles was the greatest particular achievement in tennis history.

Not sure I'd go quite that far, but it's a shame that today's players won't even get a chance to match it.
It's easy to forget just how different watching the FO and then Wimbledon was in those days.

As I mentioned many times, the FO/Wimby double was great but not so difficult in the small wooden racquets era, which is when Borg made his few doubles.

It's the larger frame and graphite racquets that really made the style played on those surfaces so different and therefore made the FO/Wimby double so special (did not happen for 28 years!)

I liked that difference in the 90s but it was too extreme...now one can win on all surfaces with one style...2 pair of lungs should I say.

I thought the FO this year was played on a hard court. The articles that complained about it were insightful. Oh wait! I never saw one on why a clay tournament has become hard court. These internet critics make me laugh. Who decides what surface speed is best for the game? The last time I checked the fast conditions at the FO was hailed until Nadal won it. You can moan without any evidence of change but fast or slow court, Djokovic will win it again, get over it.

Not sure what doping has to do with slower courts. It is becoming painful to watch this US Open. I thought it would have been a fine touch to have 2 Slams in a year play fast and on what I have seen this year, the best tennis has come during the Clay Season.

Simple_Analyst wrote:I thought the FO this year was played on a hard court. The articles that complained about it were insightful. Oh wait! I never saw one on why a clay tournament has become hard court. These internet critics make me laugh. Who decides what surface speed is best for the game? The last time I checked the fast conditions at the FO was hailed until Nadal won it. You can moan without any evidence of change but fast or slow court, Djokovic will win it again, get over it.

That's ok Simple, as long as The Nadull doesn't win it.

NITB, J Mac also talked about how the courts are playing slower. He said he thinks it might be a combination of things, from the recent painting of the courts to the lack of practice on these courts due to the bad weather, also the reduced surface washing and possibly also the balls.

Josiah,

regarding Wimbledon, I'm not sure what you were watching but I thought W was painfully slow this year. For me a good barometer is usually the effectiveness of Federer's FH in penetrating the court. At W Fed was really struggling to hit baseline winners, already at the USO he appears to be hitting them with more ease, even though the conditions do appear to be slower than previous years.

LK,

I agree it is somewhat painful watching when you know that every match is basically going to be a baseline attrition; slow conditions do not reward shotmakers - cause all their shots just keep coming back.

I'm watching Ferrer-Andreev.

The rallies are ridiculously long and usually end with errors as a result of exhaustion.

I don't think anyone complained about Nadal winning the FO S_A. It says a lot when the main talking point was the match between Federer and Djokovic in the semi's and the performance that both put in.

The Sharapova match yesterday against Watson was clear of how slow the courts are in New York because there is no way she would've won that match had it been played on a different surface.

I take my hats off to the commentators because how they can remain enthuised by this is anyone's guess.

OMG.. the third set stats showed that Ferrrer had 4 winners in a set that he won 6-0.

Andreev had zero.

emancipator wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:I thought the FO this year was played on a hard court. The articles that complained about it were insightful. Oh wait! I never saw one on why a clay tournament has become hard court. These internet critics make me laugh. Who decides what surface speed is best for the game? The last time I checked the fast conditions at the FO was hailed until Nadal won it. You can moan without any evidence of change but fast or slow court, Djokovic will win it again, get over it.

That's ok Simple, as long as The Nadull doesn't win it.

NITB, J Mac also talked about how the courts are playing slower. He said he thinks it might be a combination of things, from the recent painting of the courts to the lack of practice on these courts due to the bad weather, also the reduced surface washing and possibly also the balls.

Josiah,

regarding Wimbledon, I'm not sure what you were watching but I thought W was painfully slow this year. For me a good barometer is usually the effectiveness of Federer's FH in penetrating the court. At W Fed was really struggling to hit baseline winners, already at the USO he appears to be hitting them with more ease, even though the conditions do appear to be slower than previous years.

And should Nadal win, you cry more. Better and more amusing than I thought.

regarding Wimbledon, I'm not sure what you were watching but I thought W was painfully slow this year. For me a good barometer is usually the effectiveness of Federer's FH in penetrating the court. At W Fed was really struggling to hit baseline winners, already at the USO he appears to be hitting them with more ease, even though the conditions do appear to be slower than previous years.

I admire what Federer did in the game, but the Federer at last Wimbledon was declining with his normal strengths, not the surface fault just Roger struggled to produce his best form at all!

And should Nadal win, you cry more. Better and more amusing than I thought.

Should Nadal not meet Novak, then it's more than likely he will win!

Only way he can lose before the final is to a serving God like Isner/Tsonga/Fish

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

And should Nadal win, you cry more. Better and more amusing than I thought.

Should Nadal not meet Novak, then it's more than likely he will win!

Only way he can lose before the final is to a serving God like Isner/Tsonga/Fish

Don't worry I expect ferrer to take care of The Nadull.

Is it us ? Or are we the only ones out of step with JM ?

yummymummy wrote:Is it us ? Or are we the only ones out of step with JM ?

fine thanks, got a sore tummy but other than that top dollar!

Alba Gu Brath

This is the official explanation given by the US tennis federation:

wrote:SLOW COURTS: Roger Federer is among a handful of players talking about noticing slower playing conditions at the U.S. Open this year.

The U.S. Tennis Association acknowledges those players are right — but it wasn't done on purpose, and things should speed up as the tournament continues.

"The court surface at the 2011 U.S. Open is the same as the last several years. The courts were resurfaced in August, as usual, but due to adverse weather in the area, they have not been played on as much as in years past nor have they been power-washed as often. Both of these factors have resulted in the courts playing a little slower than usual," the USTA said in a statement issued Tuesday.

"We expect the court surface to speed up as the courts get more play throughout the tournament as they traditionally have," the statement added.

To me, if they state it so explicitly, looks like it might be true.....

Seems daft why you would re-surface them on the eve of a Grand Slam event.

Well it closes the debate on whether they are slower.

I find it hard to believe that they'll be up to full speed by the end of the event, but I don't know that for a fact.

I can't imagine any court changing speed 'drastically' like they are indicating. I can't say I know of a Hardcourt event in history that has sped up as the week has gone on.

Atleast if Roland Garros ever had to be moved out of Paris, then I guess we have found the perfect replacement!

And this ladies and gentleman, is where we find the nickname "Blue Clay"

Nole said in his presser last night that the court plays the same. So, that's it for me.

noleisthebest wrote:Nole said in his presser last night that the court plays the same. So, that's it for me.

Even though the organisers state it to be so? And so many other players and observers say so too?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Makes me wonder if Nadal's Nike contract allows him to choose the surface, tennis balls, humidity and schedule etc. I remember correctly Nadal and Spains DC team complained about an "illegal" HC surface that they played on vs US, they sure don't wanna mess with the RG goat!

I always considered the USO a slam where they wanna be different to the rest, but no they are doing their best to accomodate Spanish/South American players. I guess one other reason they have made it so slow is to do with how weak the Americans have been on clay, so getting them used to slow conditions should in theory help them improve for the clay season..

Josiah, Nike's No1 contract in tennis is Federer...who obviously
likes faster courts.

bogbrush wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Nole said in his presser last night that the court plays the same. So, that's it for me.

Even though the organisers state it to be so? And so many other players and observers say so too?

you gotta chose who to believe, draw rigging organisers or Nole....I'd beleive if Hewitt said they were slower, but he's not there, is he ..

Faust wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Makes me wonder if Nadal's Nike contract allows him to choose the surface, tennis balls, humidity and schedule etc. I remember correctly Nadal and Spains DC team complained about an "illegal" HC surface that they played on vs US, they sure don't wanna mess with the RG goat!

I always considered the USO a slam where they wanna be different to the rest, but no they are doing their best to accomodate Spanish/South American players. I guess one other reason they have made it so slow is to do with how weak the Americans have been on clay, so getting them used to slow conditions should in theory help them improve for the clay season..

Josiah, Nike's No1 contract in tennis is Federer...who obviously
likes faster courts.

yea that's true but everyone knows Fed is finished at winning slams

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Faust wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Makes me wonder if Nadal's Nike contract allows him to choose the surface, tennis balls, humidity and schedule etc. I remember correctly Nadal and Spains DC team complained about an "illegal" HC surface that they played on vs US, they sure don't wanna mess with the RG goat!

I always considered the USO a slam where they wanna be different to the rest, but no they are doing their best to accomodate Spanish/South American players. I guess one other reason they have made it so slow is to do with how weak the Americans have been on clay, so getting them used to slow conditions should in theory help them improve for the clay season..

Josiah, Nike's No1 contract in tennis is Federer...who obviously
likes faster courts.

yea that's true but everyone knows Fed is finished at winning slams

Everyone knows.... He is not the favorite, but "finished" is a stretch.
In fact at 6 to 1 he is a good bet.

Clearly, it's not the courts but the balls again that are slower. Loo how bouncy they are. Everybody's playing like Nadal cause there is not point flatening shots with such balls.

Look at the Bartoli McHale match...it's like Nadal Ferrer!

Call me contrary but I dont believe that Nadal actually likes really slow courts/balls.

lydian wrote:Call me contrary but I dont believe that Nadal actually likes really slow courts/balls.

I agree,

I think Nadal prefers faster courts with a high bounce, when not playing on clay.

Just like at USO last year - no coincidence that that was his best GS performance outside of RG.